I applied and was referred to the Client Success Manager role in January. I didn’t hear back for nearly two months. When the Senior Talent Recruiter finally reached out, we scheduled a phone screen (which they later rescheduled). After completing the phone screen, I advanced to an interview with a Director of Client Success, and then to another round requiring a mock presentation and slide deck to address a hypothetical client scenario. I was given three days to prepare the assignment, which I presented in a high-pressure mini panel setting. Despite praise for my organizational flow and story-telling structure, one of the Directors openly criticized me for using notecards during the presentation. He described it as “obvious” and visually signaled that it was off-putting. What he didn’t know: I have a well-documented cognitive disability. Notecards are a tool I use to support focus and retention. No different from someone wearing glasses to support their vision. Ironically, the same Director was wearing glasses during our interview. Should they have been told to remove them to appear more ‘polished’? That’s how absurd and hypocritical this moment was. One assistive tool was normalized, mine was pathologized. After receiving my rejection the next day, I privately reached out to the recruiter to share how inappropriate the comment felt and clarify why I use notecards. Instead of taking accountability, I was told I “should have disclosed” my disability if I needed a tool like that—then received a contradictory follow-up email trying to walk that statement back. The harm was already done. **FYI: disabilities are not legally required to be disclosed at any point during the interview / hiring process or during employment.** I was left feeling ashamed, dismissed, and penalized for using a legitimate tool to succeed in a performance-heavy process. It reignited my anxiety around interviewing and reminded me why many people with invisible disabilities avoid disclosure entirely. Worse, I emailed Pluralsight’s Chief People Officer directly to report this discriminatory experience. Weeks later, I still have not received a single acknowledgment. Pluralsight’s public commitment to DEIB is all optics. Read their DEIB report, then ask how that aligns with discriminating against a candidate for using an assistive aid in a high-stress setting. If you are someone with a visible or invisible disability, I urge you to think twice about engaging with this company. At minimum, press them hard on how they truly treat difference—not just how they market inclusion.